Their Right To Not Say It: Free Speech and the Unitarian Atheist Ad Kerfuffle

Does the Unitarian Church magazine have the right -- not just the legal right, but the moral right -- to reject an ad from an atheist organization, an ad that criticizes religion and asks people to reject it?

You might have heard about the recent kerfuffle, in which UU World -- the free denominational magazine for the Unitarian Universalist Association -- printed a paid ad (PDF) from the Freedom From Religion Foundation... and then, in response to complaints from some readers, apologized for the ad, said that it was a mistake to run it, and is declining to run it again.

Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist has objected vociferously to this decision, saying (I'm summarizing here) that the decision goes against the UU's purported commitment to religious freedom and diversity of ideas, and is an unreasonable squashing of atheist expression in a forum that should be open to it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I'm going to disagree with Hemant, and with other atheists who have criticized the UU over this.

I'm going to defend the church.

It's easy to draw the obvious parallel between the Unitarian Universalists' decision, and the ongoing controversies over atheist bus ads that bus companies keep trying to find feeble excuses to reject. That's the most obvious context that this kerfuffle took place in, and I can see why people who got irate over the bus ad controversies might jump to irateness at the Unitarian Church.

But there are two enormous differences between these situations: differences that make the situations not parallel at all. Tangential, in fact. Maybe even perpendicular.

One: The magazine of the Unitarian Universalists is a private publication, expressing the viewpoint of a private organization.

Public buses are... well, public. They're supported, at least in part, by taxpayer dollars. The rules that apply to them and their ad policies are therefore more stringent. They're supposed to have consistent ad policies which they apply fairly, across the board, to anyone who wants to advertise, regardless of whether the company agrees with the message. If they rent ad space to churches saying, "Christianity is cool," then they have to rent ad space to atheist organizations saying, "Atheism is cool."

That's a pretty solid legal principle. And I think it's a good moral principle as well. Publication spaces that belong to all citizens should provide equal access for all citizens.

But a private organization is under no such obligation. Its publications don't belong to all citizens. They belong to the organization, to publish its own opinions and views.

Yes, there are laws about public accommodations and such, and businesses that are open to the public can't reject customers based on race, gender, religion, and so on. But this principle is balanced by the First Amendment right of publications to control their content. Even large, publicly-sold, widely-read magazines have the right to reject ads whose content they think is offensive or in direct opposition to their mission. (As someone who's tried to place ads for a sex toy company in the New Yorker... believe me, I know.) And an internal magazine of a private organization has pretty close to free rein. They are under no obligation whatsoever to accept an ad whose content is explicitly hostile to their central function.

Legally -- or morally.

Which brings me to:

Two: The content of this particular ad was actively hostile to religion.

This wasn't one of those kinder, gentler atheist bus ads saying something like, "You can be good without God," or, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone," or even, "There's probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The message of this ad was not, "Hey, there are other atheists out there, it's okay to be an atheist, atheists can be good and happy people."

The message of this ad was, 'Religion sucks."

And it is entirely reasonable for a church magazine to decline an ad with the message, "Religion sucks."

Now, don't get me wrong. This is a message I more or less agree with. Some of the specific quotes are ones I might quibble with... but I basically agree with the message that religion (a) isn't true and (b) on the whole does more harm than good. I'm not saying that the FFRF were bad people for trying to run this ad.

I'm saying that the Unitarian Universalists were also not bad people for rejecting it. It was totally reasonable for them to reject it. In their place, I probably would have done the same.

Let me put it this way. Would it be reasonable for the magazine of an atheist organization -- or an atheist blog, for that matter -- to reject an ad saying, "Atheism is immoral, atheists will be condemned to hell if they don't repent, the only true path is the path of Jesus"?

And if that would be reasonable -- then why are this church's actions any different?

I actually ran into this very situation myself a while back. The United Church of Christ was running an ad campaign plugging themselves as a science-friendly church, with the tag line, "Science and faith are not mutually exclusive." It's a message that I ultimately don't agree with, that I pretty strongly don't agree with (I think religion and science can uneasily co-exist, but are fundamentally different approaches to understanding the world that will eventually conflict). And after much searching of my non-existent soul, I decided to reject the ad.

I've since come up with a different solution. I've put an "Ads Don't Necessarily Reflect My Views" disclaimer above my ad space (thanks to Ebonmuse for that suggestion!), and I now would probably accept the UCC ad with that disclaimer in place. But I think I was entirely within my rights -- not just legally, but ethically -- to reject an ad in my personal, "this is what Greta thinks" free-speech space that I felt ran completely counter to one of my most central values.

And I think the same holds true for the Unitarian Church.

The Unitarian Church is... well, it's a church. Yes, it's a church with a pretty lukewarm and inconclusive position on the existence of God. But it is a church, and at least part of its mission is to provide a home and a place of worship for people who believe in God. Religion is a central part of its mission. It is under no obligation to provide space in its own publications for the message that religion is a terrible institution that should be done away with.

There's an old saying that free speech advocates use a lot: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Well, that applies here. If the Unitarian Universalists don't want to say "Religion sucks" in their in-house magazine... well, I may not agree with what they don't want to say, but I'll defend to the death their right to not say it.

Finally, and maybe most importantly:

If we atheists are going to be ethically consistent -- if we're going to be models for the principle that you really can be good without God -- then we have to not be reflexive cheerleaders for people who are on our side. We have to judge these questions, not by choosing up sides between atheists and non-atheists, but on the basis of the ethical principles involved.*

In the coming decades, there are going to be a lot of conflicts between atheists and believers. And the atheists aren't always going to be right. We'll have a lot more credibility if we don't always stand up for the atheists... and, instead, always try to stand up for what's right.


*(To be both fair and clear, I don't think Hemant is doing that. He's shown himself plenty willing to criticize atheists when he thinks it's warranted. I'm talking about general principles here -- not Hemant's particular arguments.)

Comments

[efrique]

The links Hemant provided seems to be an entirely different ad than what you seem to be talking about.

The text I saw does not in any sense say "religion sucks".

Did Hemant err (linking to the wrong text)? Or did the ad not actually say "religion sucks"?

[Greta Christina]

Are you looking at the ad that says, "Are you looking for a sign? How about a bus sign? Definitely not a sign from above."? That's the one.

The gist of the ad is, "We're running this atheist bus ad campaign, we want you to support it with a donation." And it largely displays the six bus ads they want to run... four of which say some version of, "Religion sucks."

There's "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction." -Richard Dawkins.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." -Clarence Darrow.

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion." -Butterfly McQueen.

And "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." -Mark Twain.

Then there's one that, IMO, is borderline: "'Faith' is a fine invention for gentlemen who see -- But microscopes are prudent in an emergency!" -Emily Dickinson.

And then the sixth one isn't anti-religion: "I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe that there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people." -Katharine Hepburn.

Is that the ad you're looking at?

[sav]

I agree with you, Greta. It really comes down to the decision of the private publication.

It is, after all, selling religion in some way. For the magazine to run an ad counter to its mission does smack of self-annihilation. (Not that I would be against that, but as you mentioned, in fairness....)

[Steve Caldwell]

Greta,

You are certainly correct that a private publication like "UU World" magazine can choose what ads it wants to run.

However, the interesting aspect of this is that there isn't a consensus opinion on the decision to run the ads within Unitarian Universalism.

If one wants to see a sampling of the blog opinions about the FFRF ad, you can check out this link here (link goes to a UU blog aggregator site):

http://uupdates.net/index.php?q=Freedom+From+Religion+Foundation&page=1&nper=20

[Steve Caldwell]

Greta,

I objected to the criticism of the FFRF ad not as an outsider but rather as a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation.

Yes ... the Unitarian Universalist Association is a private organization and they can make whatever decisions they want regarding "UU World" ad policies.

And -- as a member of UU congregation and subscriber to the UU World magazine -- I have the right to express my displeasure to the magazine's editors and business managers.

And as a member of the target audience for both the magazine and the ad, I wrote the following letter to the editor:

=====================
Dear Editors,

I've read some negative reactions within the Unitarian Universalist "blogosphere" about recent ad inside the front cover of the Fall 2009 UU World magazine -- the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) ad.

Based on what I've read in blog commentary about the UU World's advertising policies, this magazine doesn't reject controversial ads except in extremely limited circumstances like racist ads or patently false ads. This seems like a reasonable policy to me and I'm glad to see that our association of congregations isn't afraid of controversy and is interested in promoting the free exchange of ideas.

At least one UU blogger has claimed that this ad was "hate speech" -- a claim that I disagree with. There is a distinction between critical words directed towards ideas and critical words directed towards persons. And the FFRF is critical of certain ideas found in some religious traditions.

Once we suggest that certain ideas are immune from critical analysis, then we are engaging in a form of idolatry.

Until recently, many ideas in traditional religions have exempt from criticism. But this cultural norm is changing in our society and I think that this is a healthier development for religion in our marketplace of ideas. To quote the Lutheran theologian Martin Marty: "It is the role of unbelievers to force religions to be benign."

If anyone out there disagrees with the FFRF ad, there are several appropriate responses that would show our respect for free expression and the marketplace of ideas:

** writing letters to the editor

** taking out a response ad in the next issue of UU World

** writing about one's displeasure in other forums (e.g. blogs, Facebook, etc)

** writing to the FFRF and expressing one's disagreement with their ad

All of these are better choices than censoring ads that are in compliance with the magazine's advertising policies.

Thanks for your consideration,
Steve
=====================

If the FFRF's ad is successful in terms of fundraising, it's not a bad thing for them.

And just look at the free publicity that they've gotten with the blog commentary.

As a Unitarian Universalist, I feel that the only loser in this situation is the Unitarian Universalist Association by their lack of courage to renounce their decision to run the ad.

[arensb]

This seems analogous to how Apple would place ads in PC/Windows magazines, back in the day, long before MSN and iPods, when the whole PC vs. Mac thing felt very much like a religious argument.

I don't know how many magazines declined to run the ads, but I imagine there were a few. And ultimately, I agree with you: those magazines were within their rights not to accept advertisements that their readers might find offensive. For the same reason, the UU magazine is within its rights to refuse the FFRF's ad.

As for defending religious people from time to time, I think that's a consequence of your principles. Too many people, I think, see their church as their tribe; if you criticize the church's ideas or tenets, they take that as a personal attack.

I, however (and, I think, for you and most people here), prefer to adhere to certain principles (one of them being "it's important to know what's true", which led me to atheism). And if principle is more important than allegiance, then it's sometimes necessary to condemn the actions of someone who's otherwise "on my team".

The ACLU faces this all the time: they're committed to the principle of upholding the Bill of Rights, but a lot of people only see the fact that they defend reprehensible people like Neonazis.

[Ebonmuse]

An important point that may be getting lost in the shuffle here is that a significant percentage of UU members are atheists. By some definitions, I'd be one of them - I occasionally attend a UU church with my fiancee, and I'm not the only atheist in the congregation by any means. This seems like a perfectly logical place for the FFRF to advertise. One would think the UUs who were so outraged about this would recognize that this ad does speak to a significant percentage of their membership.

[Greta Christina]

An important point that may be getting lost in the shuffle here is that a significant percentage of UU members are atheists... This seems like a perfectly logical place for the FFRF to advertise.

I get that. And if the content of the ad in question were different, I'd be singing a different tune. If the ad had been one of the "Hey, there are atheists in the world, and they're good people!" ads, then that wouldn't have been a contradiction of the UU mission. It would have been very much in keeping with it. And IMO, it would have been wrong of the UU to reject it.

It wasn't the broad fact of it being an atheist ad that I'm talking about. It was the specific content of the ad -- the fact that the ad was very critical of religion, saying that religion is false and harmful. That could reasonably be seen as in direct opposition to the UU mission... and therefore, rejecting the ad would be a reasonable choice.

So far, the best argument I've seen against my position (and against the UU's decision) has been Steve's. (Of course, the best argument against the UU comes from the Unitarian...) If it is the case that the UU's ad policy up to now has been to accept controversial ads, even ads that run directly counter to their mission, as long as they're not hateful or false... in that case, this decision was inconsistent with that policy, and was a bad decision. (The ad was critical and negative, but I don't see it as even remotely hateful.)

I would like to know more about their ad policy, if indeed they have one. Because I do think that "we accept controversial ads" is a different policy from "we accept controversial ads -- even ones that run directly counter to one of our central missions." It's a subtle difference... but it's an important one.

[Ebonmuse]

Some more thoughts (possibly worth developing into a blog post of my own...)

I think Unitarian Universalism is partly to blame for all this fuss. Long ago, they made a choice that's led to much confusion: they brought in traditional religious terminology to describe themselves, but the way in which they actually use those terms in practice is very different from how they've historically been defined.

The fact that they call themselves a "religion" is example #1. UU has no sacred text that lays out its dogmas. It doesn't have a formal creed. It doesn't even require a belief in God (ignorant comments from some theologians notwithstanding). The only thing that connects UU members, really, is a set of principles for moral behavior, which you can justify to yourself in any way you like.

Needless to say, this is not how the vast majority of people would define or understand the term "religion". The historical meaning of that word has always included some supernatural component and some set of shared beliefs, and UU has neither. But nevertheless, it's chosen to call itself a religion. No doubt this was partly a marketing decision: it expresses the point of this activity in a way that outsiders can easily understand, makes it seem more familiar and less threatening, and not coincidentally, grants UU a share of the unearned respect that always seems to accrue to anything calling itself a religion.

But a side effect of all this is that UU members will naturally perceive themselves to be among the targets of any attack on "religion", even if the people who uttered those statements were clearly thinking of a completely different kind of belief system. As I said, it was this choice of wording that's led to so much confusion. UU has put itself in the line of fire, so to speak, and it didn't need to. This is just one more example of the negative effects that follow from society automatically assuming any religion to be worthy of respect and deference.

[Hemant]

I agree the magazine has a right to deny the ad.

But they took FFRF's money, published the ad, and then apologized for it (in effect denouncing FFRF). Not only that, the complaints came from only a handful of people... not some overwhelming number. It just seems like a bad move from the UU Mag side.

FFRF did things right on their end. This would be a different story if UU rejected the ad outright because they felt it would offend readers... but they didn't.

I have a harder time with all that.

[G Felis]

Actually, I think that your characterization of the ads as "Religion sucks" is too broad, and misses a distinction that is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL in a UU context. Even the quotations you point to as most critical of religion seem to be primarily critical of a certain aspect of religion or approach to religiosity - specifically, dogma and dogmatism.

The Dawkins quote points to the many awful behaviors and character traits of the Old Testament Yahweh, which is only critical of Christianity (or Judaism) to the extent that a Christian takes the OT in its entirety as literally true, i.e. treats it as dogma. The Darrow quote points out that much of religion is just stories, mythology rather than literal truth - which the UU approach to religion also emphasizes, focusing on what can be learned about humanity from our stories rather than treating the stories as (dogmatic, literal) truth. What aspect of religion enslaves the mind and reinforces social control, implicated in Butterfly McQueen's words? Dogma. Et cetera.

The central concept of Unitarian Universalism hinges on one and only one clear central tenet - the rejection of dogma, or more positively the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." A typical UU congregation is chock full of atheists and agnostics and pagans, along with those who hold somewhat traditional theist beliefs - but the latter treat those beliefs strictly as beliefs and not knowledge, beliefs which they freely choose to embrace, which they acknowledge to be a matter of personal choice and feeling rather than any sort of demonstrable factual claims or necessary truths - beliefs which they don't expect other people to share or judge other people for not sharing, or they wouldn't be UU. What could be further from dogma than that?

When you strip religion of dogma, there's little left in it of which the quotations you point to are genuinely and clearly critical. Sure, there's some interpretation required to see that - but being open to other perspectives and willing to give ones fellows the benefit of a doubt is the only way the UU can exist: Rigidity is not consistent with a community where atheists and agnostics and pagans and theists all find common ground and a sense of community.

Of course, you're certainly correct that the UU has the right to publish or not to publish this ad (or any other) in their own private circulation magazine. But I think Hemant and Steve (above) are also correct to criticize the UU board for not having the courage of their own convictions. And I think you are perhaps painting with too broad a brush when you lump UU's together with other religions in your mental landscape: I think many (probably most) Unitarian Universalists are mentally flexible enough to see that there is much to criticize in traditional religion (even though they also see much of value, or they wouldn't belong to any sort of quasi-religious congregation) and to read these quotations in context. After all, the core ideals and principles of Unitarian Universalism stand in stark contrast to the overwhelming majority of the world's religious traditions: "We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed."

I don't see the point myself, but I'm glad the UU is out there for atheists who feel the need for that sort of thing.

[Steve Caldwell]

Greta asked:
-snip-
"I would like to know more about their ad policy, if indeed they have one. Because I do think that 'we accept controversial ads' is a different policy from 'we accept controversial ads -- even ones that run directly counter to one of our central missions.' It's a subtle difference... but it's an important one."

Greta,

The ad policy can be found here:

http://www.uuworld.org/advertising/uuworldadvertisingpolicy.shtml

The bylaws listing the UUA principles and purposes (why the organization exists) can be found here:

http://www.uua.org/aboutus/bylaws/articleii/index.shtml

[WScott]

If the ad had been one of the "Hey, there are atheists in the world, and they're good people!" ads, then that wouldn't have been a contradiction of the UU mission.

I agree that's the key point. There's a difference between being critical and being insulting. I think it's reasonable to conclude many believers (even UUs) would be offended by this ad, and therefore the magazine has every legal & moral right to reject it.

Quick joke: a couple years ago I attended a concert at a local Unitarian church, where the band leader made the comment: "I don't know that much about Unitarianism; is it true you begin all your prayers with To Whom It May Concern?" It took 5 minutes for the laughter to die down enough for the show to continue.

[Adam G.]

Two points.

First, "at least part of its mission is to provide a home and a place of worship for people who believe in God."

That depends on the UU church in question. My UU church has a number of pagans (some of whom are atheist pagans), about ten Christians, and the rest are humanists and atheists. Unitarian Universalism, as an organization, is an association of many different member churches - it's not like Catholicism or even like Methodism, where there's an overarching body that runs the show.

Second, I think the word "faith" needs some clarification with regards to UU practice. I have faith. It's not in a supreme being. It's in the principles taught in my church (and yes, I'm an atheist). But I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, for example. So it's important to distinguish "faith" and "faith" - there are several different meanings for those words, and the one that works in the context of UUism is more like "fidelity to principles" and less like "belief without proof." Think of "keeping the faith" and you'll have a better idea of what most UUs mean when they say "faith."

[Rieux]

I'm an atheist who spent seven years as a UU, before I left for reasons rather similar to this episode: though the Unitarian Universalist Association purports to be an atheist-friendly organization, in practice it coddles and promotes disgustingly bigoted anti-atheist ideas, frequently voiced by its most powerful figures. In UUA rhetoric, atheists exist primarily to be attacked, insulted, and marginalized.

As Ebonmuse and G Felis above have pointed out, Greta, it appears to me that you really don't understand the UU context in which this episode of ugly censorship took place. You're simply mistaken that "Religion is a central part of [the UUA's] mission"--at least in the way you (like the vast majority of the English-speaking world) mean "religion." As Ebonmuse described, UUs' notion of what "religion" means is vastly different than the notion held by pretty much everyone else--including, significantly, the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Moreover, in comparing the UUA to any other "church," you're ignoring the fact that UUs claim that atheism--and even rejection of religion--is acceptable, and indeed welcome, within the UUA. That's the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" Principle mentioned above; the UUA claims that it's fundamentally different than all other churches, in that it isn't opposed to atheistic and similarly critical takes on religion.

What this episode shows is that that claim, at least as it pertains to the national Association, is a lie. The UUA welcomes in atheists out of one side of their mouths while smearing and censoring us out of the other. Which makes them far different from any other denomination that could have refused or badmouthed the FFRF ad.

Finally, while there is certainly hostility toward religion communicated in that ad, I think the notion (both from you and from the UU atheophobes who complained to UU World) that its message is simply "religion sucks" is notably blind to the way the ad is constructed. That ad doesn't directly say "Faith is believing what you know ain't so"--it points out that Mark Twain said that. Certainly the FFRF is generally sympathetic to Twain's notion, but the fact that someone as prominent and respected as Twain said it--communicating the kind of "atheism and dissent from religion have a long and storied history and are worthy of respect" message that might be put on, say, a bus--is more relevant than the simple shot at "faith."

It seems to me that you're oversimplifying the ad, and you're definitely misunderstanding UUism.

Sure, the UUA is within its legal rights to censor the FFRF. But they render their supposed "free faith" and acceptance of diversity a crock when they do so. And that hypocrisy is why they were clearly in the wrong here.

[Rieux]

WScott:

I think it's reasonable to conclude many believers (even UUs) would be offended by this ad....

Again, this just demonstrates a basic failure to understand what UUism claims itself to be.

As multiple commenters have pointed out, lots of UUs are not "believers." Basic UU doctrine claims that the very ideas censored from UU World are ideas that are welcome within UUism. It's just notably difficult to square that claim with currently demonstrable reality.

Claiming to welcome atheists and our ideas, while at the same time censoring (relatively tame statements of) our ideas because some people find them "offensive," is neither reasonable nor moral.

[Joani Blank]

There have been some excellent responses from atheist and non-atheist UUs here. So I won't repeat what they have said. And I urge anyone reading this thread (who's not yet done so) to go to the UUA's website www.uua.org and read the seven principles that UUs subscribe to and try to live by.

But there's one point that has not yet been raised here. From the middle of the 16th century when Unitarianism began in Transylvania and Poland, Unitarians have subscribed to "freedom of religious belief" and for the last hundred years that has clearly included the freedom to reject any notion of god.

As an athiest Jewish UU, my commitment to Unitarian Universalism obligates me to be as tolerant and accepting of others in my congregation (and in the larger UU movement) who believe in any kind of God, or who subscribe to a personal creed of their own choosing, whether or not it includes a believe in a [capital G] god, as I am to others, who like me, identify as atheists.

Along those lines I feel quite sure that the UU World would say no to an ad from a Christian or Jewish organization...(even an organization of UU Christians, or Jewish UUs and yes, both of those are officially recognized as "related organizations" within the UUA) that rejected, criticized or was perceived to be offensive to atheists!

My UU faith (you should excuse the expression) requires me to be as accepting of those who believe in God as I am of other atheists inside and outside the UU community.

Jewish tradition and law not only allows Jews to "argue with God," It actually obligates them to do so. I'm not an observant Jew by any stretch of the imagination, but I take this commandment to mean that I may (perhaps should) argue with those who believe in God. And there have been periods in my life when I have done that at every opportunity.

Frequently recommending that people subscribe to your blog, Greta, is pretty much all I do for the cause these days. I'm one of your regular readers who came for the sex and stayed for the sex AND the atheism.

(Posted by Greta for Joani, who had tech trouble posting her comment)

[WScott]

As multiple commenters have pointed out, lots of UUs are not "believers." Basic UU doctrine claims that the very ideas censored from UU World are ideas that are welcome within UUism.

I think you missed my point. Yes, not all UUs are believers, but many (maybe even most?) are to one degree or another. And if the ad had said “Not everyone believes in god” or even the ubiquitous John Lennon “Imagine” quote, that would've been fine.

But that’s not what this ad said. The message of the ad was pretty clearly "Anyone who believes in god is an idiot." The quotes chosen for the ad were deliberately exclusive and inflammatory. (The fact that I personally happen to agree with them doesn’t change that.) Sometimes, how you deliver the message is at least as important as the message itself – especially in advertising, which is what we’re talking about here.

Legal & moral rights aside, the magazine has a financial right not to print things that are going to piss off their subscribers. The fact that some readers (I don’t know how many) DID complain kinda supports their decision, don’t you think?

[Rieux]

Joani:

Along those lines I feel quite sure that the UU World would say no to an ad from a Christian or Jewish organization...(even an organization of UU Christians, or Jewish UUs and yes, both of those are officially recognized as "related organizations" within the UUA) that rejected, criticized or was perceived to be offensive to atheists!

Then why has UU World, and the UUA in general, so frequently published articles and sermons that are brutally nasty toward atheists?

Sorry, Joani--despite what it makes you comfortable to tell yourself, the UUA has been publishing anti-atheist bigotry for many years. You're simply mistaken that we are protected from anything by the people who run your religion.

Looking at the religious aspects of many intergroup conflicts, at the violence carried out by zealots in the name of religion, some people conclude that the world would be safer "religion-free." They may even try living this way themselves. But too often they only practice a form of self-delusion. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the human spirit. As C.S. Lewis said, the opposite of a belief in God is not a belief in nothing; it is a belief in anything. Sweep the demon of religion out the door and, like the story in the Gospels, you may only succeed in making room for an evil spirit worse than the first—this one accompanied by seven friends (Luke 11:24-26; Matt. 12:43-45). Zealous atheism can perform this role of demonic pseudoreligion.

....

One cost of avoiding religion altogether may be spiritual isolation. Too often today couples are already socially isolated. ... Having raised their children in a spiritual vacuum, apart from any religious discussion or community, committed secularists are sometimes shocked when their offspring suddenly join a high-demand cult or follow a seductive guru. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does the human spirit. The lure of the various isms, though hardly unknown to religious people, may be even more intense for those who avoid religion.

- John Buehrens (UUA President 1993-2001), in A Chosen Faith, the Association's best-selling "classic Introduction to Unitarian Universalism" (published by Beacon Press, the UUA's publishing house)

Life is a miracle that can't be explained without explaining it away. Our most profound encounters lead inexorably from the rational to the transrational realm.

Many leading scientists are far ahead of us in this regard. Some recent discoveries in physics and cosmology make no apparent sense according to known canons of rationality. Probing the mysteries of the universe and the mind, researchers on the cutting edge of knowledge find themselves moving freely between the rational and transrational realms. Where does that leave the poor camp followers, who believe in science but don't embrace mystery? Having traded God for truth, they are left with neither.

- Rev. Forrest Church, "Universalism: A Theology for the 21st Century," UU World, November/December 2001

Our resistance to religious language, I believe, helps to account for the struggle that so many of us experience in trying to say who we are as Unitarian Universalists. I always encourage people to work on their elevator speech, what you'd say when you're going from the sixth floor to the lobby and somebody asks you, "What's a Unitarian Universalist?" You've got forty-five seconds. Here's my latest: "The Unitarian side tells us that there is only one God, one spirit of life, one power of love. The Universalist side tells us that God is a loving God, condemning none of us, valuing the spark of divinity that is in every human being." So my version of what Unitarian Universalism stands for is, "One God, no one left behind."

- Rev. Bill Sinkford (UUA President 2001-09), "Share the Good News with a world that badly needs it," UU World, March/April 2003

I have sometimes used a simple phrase to describe my overarching perspective on life. It’s shaped, I say, by a “biblical humanism.” In using the term “humanist” I am not refusing to think about God or to search for transcendence.

....

I am not interested in using my critical skills to tear apart or dismiss the religious experience of others in the name of my supposed “scientific” superiority or cultural modernity. No, I take the term “biblical humanist” from the German Jewish sage Martin Buber. ....

- Buehrens, "Why bother with the Bible?", UU World, July/August 2003

To be sure, I didn't find a whole lot in [American Atheists President Ellen] Johnson's message with which to disagree. But my attitude tends to be: "Who cares?" I know my views are not mainstream, and I don't expect to see them reflected in the majority culture; all I ask is that the majority's views not be imposed on me. The idea that nearly 300 people would travel across the country to spend a weekend [attending the annual American Atheists convention] complaining about such trivial insults — if, indeed, they can even be considered insults — struck me as weird.

- Dan Kennedy, "Are You with the Atheists?", UU World, January/February 2003

Who are these people who still think that it's special and unique to reject traditional images of the Deity? Are they the same guys who sit with me at weddings and let drop the bomb that they respect what I do but, rilly, they're "spiritual but not religious??" "That's fascinating and special, dear," I tell them. "But I'd love it so much if we could conclude this conversation right this minute and you'd go fetch me another cocktail."
It hasn't happened yet but I swear...!

....

For an atheist to expect CHURCHES to pander to the a-theistic search for truth and meaning is like hiring a dental hygenist with no arms to do your cleaning, and expecting her to do a good job of it.

- UU Rev. Victoria ("Peacebang") Weinstein, in the "Philocrites" blog, run by UU World editor Christopher Walton, January 2005

...and there are plenty more where those came from.

The Unitarian Universalist Association is just as welcoming a place for atheists as the Republican Party is for GLBTs. It would be nice if UUs would face up to this--and either do something about it or quit putting on airs about how much they respect atheists. As someone famous once said, "ye shall know them by their fruits"--and the fruits of UU treatment of its nonbelieving minority are extremely ugly.

[Rieux]

I suspect the following comment got lodged in Typepad's spam filter, so I'm yanking out the hyperlinks and reposting it:

WScott wrote:

Yes, not all UUs are believers, but many (maybe even most?) are to one degree or another.

What does that mean?

The vast majority of UUs do not believe in anything supernatural. Thus, by the ordinary notion of what it means to be a "believer," only a tiny proportion of UUs are "believers."

A much larger fraction use "God," "faith," and/or "religion" language freely--but (as multiple commenters above have pointed out) they mean fundamentally different things by those words than your average Catholic or Protestant does.

Calling UUs (or "maybe even most" of them) "believers" simply ignores the basic facts about the denomination.

The message of the ad was pretty clearly "Anyone who believes in god is an idiot."

No, it was not. The ad quoted six people expressing ideas that are critical toward religion--indeed, toward manifestations of religion that are vastly more conservative than UUs' "religion." Not one of them declared anyone an "idiot."

The FFRF is perfectly capable of designing an ad that says, in nice boldfaced type, "Anyone who believes in god is an idiot." They could even submit an ad that simply read "Religion is slavery." But despite the refusal of their critics (even here--guh!) to pay careful attention, the actual ad carries a considerably different message than the simple "believers are idiots" attack you're pretending it does.

Sometimes, how you deliver the message is at least as important as the message itself....

But you're ignoring how they delivered the message, and (ugh) pretending that attacks on religious ideas are the same thing as attacks on religious people.

The fact that some readers (I don’t know how many) DID complain

Well, I do know how many.

Eight.

UU World has a circulation of a little over 125,000.

...kinda supports their decision, don’t you think?

Of course not. In a community that actually accepts atheists and our ideas--even when those include perspectives that are critical of religion--, there is nothing offensive about that ad. Not to mention that, as I showed in my previous comment, UU World has been printing disgustingly offensive material about atheists for many years.

This decision demonstrates bald prejudice against atheists and nonbelieving perspectives, and it's part of a long course of absurdly hypocritical behavior by the Unitarian Universalist Association. That you, an atheist, are standing up to agree with such behavior--while simultaneously congratulating yourself for supporting hypocritical discrimination even against people you "personally happen to agree with"--is more than slightly ugly.

Atheists, at their worst, can be as nasty, as self-righteous, and even as violent as Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.

The twentieth century was the first in which militant atheists gained significant political power. Quite often the results were horrifying. In Communist China, cadres destroyed Taoist, Buddhist, and Confucian temples and herded monks and nuns into slave labor camps. Thousands of Jewish, Christian, and pagan religious leaders were murdered or imprisoned during the Stalinist years in the Soviet Union. Similar atrocities—committed in the name of "reason" and "progress"—have been seen in Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and other nations.

Be grateful for the wall between church and state that protects U.S. citizens. It's a barrier that also defends Unitarian Universalists and others from government persecution directed by antireligious bigots. In order to appreciate the experience, talk with the Unitarians in Rumania who suffered through decades of Communist tyranny and abuse.

- Andrea Liounis, "At Their Worst," UU World May/June 2003 (link: bit.ly/ZBvlR )

[Norwegian Shooter]

This was a great conversation about UUism and atheism until Rieux stopped by. Thanks, buddy. Look forward to your response to this comment.

And thanks to Greta, who thoughtfully explained her position very clearly. And even better, I agree with it. However, I want to clear up what she said about UUism:

The Unitarian Church is... well, it's a church. Yes, it's a church with a pretty lukewarm and inconclusive position on the existence of God. But it is a church, and at least part of its mission is to provide a home and a place of worship for people who believe in God. Religion is a central part of its mission. It is under no obligation to provide space in its own publications for the message that religion is a terrible institution that should be done away with.

The Unitarian Universalist Association is not a capital cee Church. The local congregation is free to define itself and its practices how it sees fit. The UUA doesn't have a position on the existence of God or any other doctrine or creedal statement. I would guess virtually all congregations don't take a "position" on these matters either. No part of either the UUA's or a local congregation's mission is to provide a home for God believers.

Then you get one right. Religion is a central part of the UUA and local congregations. To be clear, I'm using religion in the original Latin sense, to bind people together. Religion is not belief and vice versa. That is the common mistake that causes so much confusion when discussing how religion relates to both atheism and UUism.

[Jessica Sideways]

I'm pretty happy the UU World Editorial Staff ran the ad... at first. And I am disappointed that they refused to continue to run the ad after the bellyaching of religious mental cases.

[Theresa]

One might be led to believe that having made his decision after receiving only eight letters, that the business manager made it by his own reasoning, and not by the weight of the influence of the letter writers.

[Rieux]

Well, this is a fine how-do-you-do, Mr./Ms. "Shooter":

This was a great conversation about UUism and atheism until Rieux stopped by.

And yet you have no response whatever regarding the numerous examples of disgusting UU anti-atheist bigotry I quoted and linked to. You pretend that the horrendous prejudice and discrimination your religion greets atheists with doesn't exist by sneering at anyone who dares to point it out. How cute.

Religion is not belief and vice versa. That is the common mistake that causes so much confusion when discussing how religion relates to both atheism and UUism.

And you'll censor anyone who tries to argue otherwise. It's quite a joke that a church so arrogantly and slavishly beholden to the above idea claims to have no dogma and no creed.

But to anyone not as far gone into anti-atheist hate as our friend Norwegian Shooter is, there's the problem atheists face in UUism: they can't even say anything critical about "religion," because virulent dogmatists like NS will smear them six ways from Sunday for daring to make the "common mistake" of disagreeing with an idiosyncratic niche conception of what the word "religion" means.

You, Sir or Madam, are a bigot.

[Greta Christina]

You, Sir or Madam, are a bigot.

Rieux: Please dial it down. The rule for commenting in my blog is that I accept and even encourage vigorous debate and criticism of ideas, beliefs, and actions: but personal insults are off-limits. "Your ideas are bigoted" is (barely) acceptable; "You are a bigot" is not. Thanks.

[Rieux]

I understand, Greta, and I certainly try--but this:

This was a great conversation about UUism and atheism until Rieux stopped by. Thanks, buddy. Look forward to your response to this comment.

...is a right-cross-to-the-jaw insult. It's personal, nasty, and totally contentless. I researched and posted on this thread a large amount of very relevant material, and "Norwegian Shooter" decided a personal sneer was an appropriate reply.

It certainly seems to me that (ahem) remarks like that one show major signs of serious bigotry.